Driver Only Operation (DOO) - When will it arrive?

[jon0844]

Technology should make it possible to have everyone alerted to something within milliseconds, not minutes.

A train that is reporting its location and maintaining two-way communication would mean a loss of comms would be enough to trigger a series of checks that might stop everything in the area. Various sensors could also detect and alert for a range of accident scenarios.

Having that technology wouldn't make a guard or driver obsolete, as their training on how to deal with passengers, first aid, save evacuations and giving information would still be as important as it is now - but the safety related stuff to protect the train could and should be replaced with technology to prevent the risks of both driver and guard being unable to respond, or having to gamble on what things to do.

I can't see any need to fear technology here, and a guard/driver would still be paid for being able to deal with situations even if there's far less chance of those skills being needed. Yes, there's a chance that as the years go on, having to only deal with, say, first aid and a safe evacuation might result in the pay level falling - but as long as you protected the people on the current grades, it would sort itself out naturally over time.

 

[HSTEd]

ERTMS, level 3 or otherwise, is many years away. GSM-R in itself is the package being discussed, and that offers way less provision for handling such a situation.

Fair enough, although the neccesary ERTMS compatible equipment which would have to be connected to the GSM-R for this to work has already been installed on at-least two classes. (Cl390 and Cl221 in the form of the TASS rig which is a cut down ERTMS rig).

I can assure you that a decent Guard will not be 'trying to find his TC clips',; he will know very well exactly where they are, and they will be hitting the steel pretty quickly.

Quicker than pressing a button, waiting a couple of seconds for the call to pass to the signaller's headset and a dialog box to flash up on his console, and then speaking "Block all Lines" twice to make sure he heard it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

GSM-R that is being rolled out nationally will not be connected to any on train systems other than PA & DSD. There is no way for the signaller to know if GSM-R has failed other than to see if the headcode has dropped off his terminal.

Well the GSM standard supports determining if the shutdown was a result of deliberate deactivation or some sort of fault/loss of signal, so there is no reason this cannot or would not be implemented on GSM-R, allowing you to determine whether a train has been handed off properly or shut down in the depot or if it has suffered some sort of GSM-R fault.

 

[GB]

Quicker than pressing a button, waiting a couple of seconds for the call to pass to the signaller's headset and a dialog box to flash up on his console, and then speaking "Block all Lines" twice to make sure he heard it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Signallers aren't being issued with headsets as far as I am aware. There will be a console on their workstation/panel with a screen and regular type phone handset.

On a separate note, just saying "block all lines" twice (or once for that matter) doesn't in anyway conform to the laid out safety critical communication procedures.

I get the feeling those trying to debunk track circuit operating clips aren't train crew or signallers and don't fully understand the practicalities of using them in an emergency and how just a few seconds extra warning can make all the difference.

Quick question though, trains that are currently fitted and using GSM-R, do they still carry standard protection methods?

I also think were are going off on a slight tangent too, by talking about how the GSMR system could work rather than how it is actually going to work in the field.

 

[tirphil]

Signallers aren't being issued with headsets as far as I am aware. There will be a console on their workstation/panel with a screen and regular type phone handset.

On a separate note, just saying "block all lines" twice (or once for that matter) doesn't in anyway conform to the laid out safety critical communication procedures.

I get the feeling those trying to debunk track circuit operating clips aren't train crew or signallers and don't fully understand the practicalities of using them in an emergency and how just a few seconds extra warning can make all the difference.

Quick question though, trains that are currently fitted and using GSM-R, do they still carry standard protection methods?

I also think were are going off on a slight tangent too, by talking about how the GSMR system could work rather than how it is actually going to work in the field.

Trains fitted and using GSM-R and ERTMS Level 2 on the Cambrian still carry standard protection equipment for use in an emergency both on The Cambrian and for when the units are travelling over lines fitted with conventional signalling. ie: north Wales coast, Shrewsbury - Brum, Marches line etc.

 

[GB]

OK Thanks.

 

[jon0844]

Any train should surely keep any form of old-school safety equipment like detonators as a backup, in case something goes wrong and all the technology fails for some reason - however unlikely.

That's why staff shouldn't have anything to fear about the need for their job, even if their job will be made a lot easier for the most part.

 

[GB]

Any train should surely keep any form of old-school safety equipment like detonators as a backup, in case something goes wrong and all the technology fails for some reason - however unlikely.

Well that is the same opinion I hold, but others seem to believe that this GSMR technology is never going to fail. I just hope they are right!

Protection equipment takes up little room and costs peanuts and requires no great skill to use...what is the problem in keeping them as a "just in case" precautionary measure?

 

[jon0844]

I think it's very unlikely that a properly designed system with failsafes built in would fail - but you can never be 100% sure.

There's also the issue of how much the industry would want to pay for a totally foolproof system where the trains can all communicate in realtime with control, or even each other, and sensors can detect every possible incident - with backups to ensure that even if half the train is totally wrecked, there's still a way to send an emergency signal - or have someone detect the loss of a signal and react accordingly.

 

[tirphil]

Well that is the same opinion I hold, but others seem to believe that this GSMR technology is never going to fail. I just hope they are right!

Protection equipment takes up little room and costs peanuts and requires no great skill to use...what is the problem in keeping them as a "just in case" precautionary measure?

I can confirm from personal experience that GSM-R does fail. There are radio 'holes' where there is no connection with the SCC and signallers still ask drivers to confirm their location for the purpose of advising members of the public if it is safe to cross a UWC because the system does not provide the exact location of a train. The system only knows which section a train is occupying. Some sections are quite long on The Cambrian.

 

[jon0844]

I presume at the moment trains don't relay GPS information for accurate location, as they're either not fitted with the equipment or the means to transmit the data effectively.

But, there's no reason that couldn't be made to happen in the future. If every train sent its location, you could easily stop trains remotely if required - all before anyone could pick up a phone or get on a radio.

 

[Skoodle]

On the East London Line we use GSM-R and axle counters are used. We are still instructed to use the clips as "habit", so we don't forget to use them on the Southern section which is track circuit operated.

 

[68000]

Well that is the same opinion I hold, but others seem to believe that this GSMR technology is never going to fail. I just hope they are right!

GSM-R is radio and it is very difficult to control radio waves therefore there is a chance that the cell the cab radio camps onto is not the correct one. This is especially true when the radio starts from cold. If it is not the correct one, the emergency broadcast may protect the a different section of line and may connect to the different signaller than the one intended. This is where GSM-R fundamentally differs from GSM, for the railway, you want to control the radio waves as much as possible and for public operators, you don't really care which radio cell you connect through as long as you do. The transeivers used in the GSM-R radio are commercial off the shelf ones from the GSM world

 

[Flamingo]

On the East London Line we use GSM-R and axle counters are used. We are still instructed to use the clips as "habit", so we don't forget to use them on the Southern section which is track circuit operated.

Same in South Wales on the stretch between Newport & BPW

 

[jon0844]

GSM does require movement to do an accurate prediction for hand offs. It may transmit omni directionally, but receives in sectors and predicts where you might be going to before handing off, then monitoring if that hand off was successful.

It's not foolproof, especially if there are dead spots - although GSM-R shouldn't have these, unlike regular mobile coverage, as there are transmitters placed solely for railway property, including tunnels, which mobile operators don't do as a matter of course (clearly they try and cover the railways, but it's not done perfectly).

 

[68000]

Without turning this into a technical discussion, the issue we have is the number of frequencies allocated (18). Each frequency is a cell and the rail industry want smaller cells and separated cells to mitigate the performance impact of the emergency calls therefore there is a lot of re-use in a relatively small area in build up areas. GSM-R does use neighbour lists for hand-overs and it is quite possible for a cab radio to pick up a certain cell and hand over to the neighbours for quite a distance, the only problem being may be cells on the wrong line. The risk is a lot higher when the radio is switched on initially as the GSM algorithim the transeiver uses just scans for the best cell which may be the wrong cell.

GSM-R is also being impacted by the Ofcom Spectrum Liberalisation where UMTS900 is being deployed by o2 and Vodaphone

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bi...ireless-telegraphy/responses/Network_Rail.pdf

Of course, this interference and other GSM interference could create blocking which can impact on the ability of the train radio to select the correct cell.

 

[tirphil]

I presume at the moment trains don't relay GPS information for accurate location, as they're either not fitted with the equipment or the means to transmit the data effectively.

But, there's no reason that couldn't be made to happen in the future. If every train sent its location, you could easily stop trains remotely if required - all before anyone could pick up a phone or get on a radio.

No GPS for ERTMS on The Cambrian. Axle counters and balises are used.

GPS was/is used by EWS/DB Schenker with its class 66 fleet. Reliability was a problem way back when I was a TOPS clerk.

 

[Goldfish62]

And you are entirely correct BestWestern. I've worked DOO and I currently work trains with a guard, and working trains with a guard is the ONLY way to work a train in my opinion.

Except on LUL and other train operators where DOO has been used for decades.....

 

[wigwamman]

Except on LUL and other train operators where DOO has been used for decades.....

He did say "in my opinion"
So guys how long are we talking here for the role of the gaurd to still be in place 5,10,20 years

 

[Flamingo]

It's more what will it have evolved into, I would say...

 

[tirphil]

He did say "in my opinion"
So guys how long are we talking here for the role of the gaurd to still be in place 5,10,20 years

On The Cambrian? Because of very short platforms, low platforms, disabled access etc, I think there will always be guards on The Cambrian.

 

[BestWestern]

Except on LUL and other train operators where DOO has been used for decades.....

Let's not get into the very substantial differences between the Undergroud system and the national rail network! You'll also find that some of those places where DOO has been used for years, still have Guards at times as well. FGW on the Thames Valley, and some of LOROL come to mind, then there's the agreement about the second staff member (albeit not a Guard) on Strathclyde DOO.

As for Detonators and suchlike as back up protection, I can't ever see trains not being equipped with it. Also bear in mind that there are requirements for 'Assistance Protection', which I presume will continue to apply under GSM-R.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On The Cambrian? Because of very short platforms, low platforms, disabled access etc, I think there will always be guards on The Cambrian.

Short platforms in particular is an interesting one. This could cause one or two problems with bringing in DOO in certain areas. If you do not have a fancy new fleet with auto door selection or SDO capability, it would be very difficult indeed to instigate a practical and safe procedure. Extending platforms is horrendously expensive, and in some cases potentially impossible. Wiring up an old unit for DOO might be doable, but wiring it up for releasing only specific doors would be far more complex. Even if you have something like a 150 or 158, where you could argue that the 'Butterfly' release valve could be used from the cab to open the leading door, you will have issues if somebody wishes to board with a couple of bikes or a buggy or suchlike, which needs to be boarded further down the train. Many of these small halts are also request stops, which raises more issues again. Will we see trains fitted with 'Stop' bells?!

Most problematic of all though is the disabled access issue. Presumably, the DDA will eventually mean that a disabled person should be able to turn up at a station, unannounced, and board the next train in the same way that anybody else can. That is essentially the spirit of the Act, to provide equal treatment. Operators are yet to announce to the world exactly how that might work when both trains and stations are devoid of any customer facing staff? Yes, if the person books in advance you can send somebody to help them, but only providing a service you are given 24 hours notice is surely discrimination!?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I presume at the moment trains don't relay GPS information for accurate location, as they're either not fitted with the equipment or the means to transmit the data effectively.

But, there's no reason that couldn't be made to happen in the future. If every train sent its location, you could easily stop trains remotely if required - all before anyone could pick up a phone or get on a radio.

A significant proportion of trains (certainly pretty much everything built post privatisation and plenty of stuff built earlier) use GPS to update the Passenger Information Screens. I fail to see why that information couldnt be relayed back to a signal box or control centre with existing technology. It will probably be used to monitor drivers linespeeds too. It feels awfully Orwellian, but I guess if we do our jobs properly then there is no cause for alarm just yet.

 

[68000]

A significant proportion of trains (certainly pretty much everything built post privatisation and plenty of stuff built earlier) use GPS to update the Passenger Information Screens. I fail to see why that information couldnt be relayed back to a signal box or control centre with existing technology. It will probably be used to monitor drivers linespeeds too. It feels awfully Orwellian, but I guess if we do our jobs properly then there is no cause for alarm just yet.

I am not sure that is correct, the screens are updated by the TD system via Network Rail SMART links to train operators. Driver speeds will probably be monitored by any OTMR that is fitted to the train.

 

[jon0844]

A significant proportion of trains (certainly pretty much everything built post privatisation and plenty of stuff built earlier) use GPS to update the Passenger Information Screens. I fail to see why that information couldnt be relayed back to a signal box or control centre with existing technology.

I am sure it could, but the problem is that you need a 100% reliable data connection and I have no idea if GSM-R is resilient enough for that. Clearly 'public' phone networks aren't with people having trouble with data all the time, even if only for short periods of time that aren't always noticed.

Take O2's recent problems - from its network outage to the problem with being unable to send data from the cycle teams (during the Olympics) because of localised congestion. Sure, GSM-R is separate to ordinary GSM and 3G, but must have the same issues and the potential for things to go wrong.

I guess GPS would be used in addition to current sensors, but who would decide at what point the loss of GPS data requires stopping trains until you can establish where it's gone? Do you just allow time for it to restore a connection, or assume that the lost connection means it's fallen off a bridge?

I still say technology will replace a lot of the key safety related duties for staff, but there's still a long way to go. There's also the cost of upgrading the equipment, improving the network and having the equipment at the other end to receive the data and do anything meaningful with it. All possible right now, but at a price.

If a train could send back information on its location, it could also send back other useful information - such as how many passengers are on the train (using the existing passenger counters fitted on selected trains) which could offer other useful data to TOCs for managing services during unexpected busy periods, such as big events.

 

[ainsworth74]

I am not sure that is correct, the screens are updated by the TD system via Network Rail SMART links to train operators.

I think Cherry_Picker was referring to on train PIS rather than the station equivalents.

 

[HSTEd]

Of course, if they really do implement all the things they want to patch through the GSM-R connection, like feeds from on board cameras, it might be possible for the signaller to pull the last few seconds of the video feed from any front and rear facing cameras on the train.

That would help determine if there was a collision.

 

[Flamingo]

Lots of "they shoulds" and "what if's" not to mention "why don't's" on this thread.

Meanwhile back in the real world...

 

[Monty]

A significant proportion of trains (certainly pretty much everything built post privatisation and plenty of stuff built earlier) use GPS to update the Passenger Information Screens. I fail to see why that information couldnt be relayed back to a signal box or control centre with existing technology. It will probably be used to monitor drivers linespeeds too. It feels awfully Orwellian, but I guess if we do our jobs properly then there is no cause for alarm just yet.

If it's the same GPS technology used for SWT's 450/444s PIS screens I would be a tad concerned if it was being used to monitor a trains progress. It's not always the most reliable of systems. :P

 

[Cherry_Picker]

It's not 100% reliable on the 165s & 168s I am familiar with too, but the GPS on my phone is very very good and it will only continue to improve as the European Galileo satellite navigation system comes online over the next few years (the American GPS is one of several systems in operation, Russia and China have their own systems too) so this technology is clearly coming and while it wont be on trains tomorrow it will almost certainly be on the next generation of rolling stock that will be awarded during the next wave of franchise agreements, all within the time frame this thread is talking about.

 

[jon0844]

Qualcomm already makes chipsets for mobile phones that work with GPS and GLONASS which increases accuracy and the speed to get a fix. I've got one in my phone, but the chip goes back to phones made in 2011 and is designed to work in an environment where a mobile may be in a pocket, on a car seat or blocked by other things.

With multiple receivers on a train, and added technology to measure a position in a tunnel, getting a VERY accurate fix is possible today. But it all comes down to cost, and working together to make sure that any future safety systems are standardised - not merely clever tech fitted on some trains and not others, and not being able to talk to each other.. and once fitted on to trains and transmitting all this information, there needs to be the equipment to receive, compute and act on that data.

Many years off for that, even if you or I could probably 'design' a system in the next few days!